I have read it. I'm unsure how his disagreements with Calvin as a man therefore mean his doctrine is untrue? or how it somehow demonstrates the early church of Rome had a monarchial bishop and not a multiplicity of elders until the mid second century at least?

And of course I have yet to go through the article and actually test what it says.

Lincs.

Hi, Lincs....

Anders did not have disagreements with Calvin...this is what he wrote.....Strangely, mastering Calvin didn’t lead me anywhere I expected............But more importantly, I discovered that Calvin upset my Evangelical view of history........... The more I studied Calvin, however, the more foreign he seemed, the less like Protestants today......... Calvin shocked me by rejecting key elements of my Evangelical tradition. Born-again spirituality, private interpretation of Scripture, a broad-minded approach to denominations – Calvin opposed them all. I discovered that his concerns were vastly different, more institutional, even more Catholic.........How could my Church claim Calvin as a founder, and yet stray so far from his views?

So...Linc...if you have tested it...do you agree with his findings?

On the issue of authority.......you keep objecting to a papacy...as unbiblical and a modern development....well, how about the Consistory that calvin established in Geneva?

My question to you....where did Calvin get the authority to establish his Consistory in Geneva? And the authority he exercised there?

Is it Biblical? Where is the Biblical basis for it?

If it is unbiblical...would you then also conclude that what Calvin exercised is unbiblical...and his teachings that flowed from his exercise of authority is also unbiblical?

Calvin’s Institutes would eventually be declared official doctrine.........so who declared them official doctrine? I deduce from the article it was the secular authorities of Geneva, not any church......so would you agree that this is an unbiblical action?

Calvin’s lifelong goal was to gain the right to excommunicate “unworthy” Church members. The city council finally granted this power in 1555 when French immigration and local scandal tipped the electorate in his favor

So Calvin's excommunications flowed, not from Church authority, but from the City council of Geneva....so this is an innovation, correct?

Final arbiter or determiner of one's own beliefs, then. After all, you think authority comes from God because you have found it reasonable to think this. I think the same, but maybe we both are mistaken. Any claim of infallibility has to be weighed by the human individual.

We accept some claim as infallible, but our acceptance is based on reasons that may be flawed. Therefore, there is no guarantee for the claim.

I doubt our beliefs are identical, but I think Jesus is the same person.

I am sorry,but your approach borders relativism and no absolute Truth. Do you even consider yourself Christian?

I am sorry,but your approach borders relativism and no absolute Truth. Do you even consider yourself Christian?

I am Christian. And this is not relativism. Objective truth exists. But if it is not math, we cannot know the truth with absolute certainty this side of heaven. Unless you think human reasoning and decision making is generally infallible when it comes to matters of religion.

You believe that the Pope is infallible because of your own fallible reasoning. None of us can be completely sure. We just, each of us, try our best.

We are talking empirical historical evidence. Not an "opinion" of the Bible.

That's right! We have very good reasons for accepting Jesus's message in the Bible. There are good historical reasons for believing that he is the Son of God.

But these historical arguments are connected in some degree to the capacity for human reason. Human reason is not infallible. Therefore, its conclusions, even conclusions about inerrancy or infallibility, may be wrong, and should always be suspect.

The existence of a perfect book or a perfect teaching authority does not help, because no one can ever perfectly know which authority is perfect!

How do you know this is God himself? What reasons do you have, and why do you trust them?

I can only be as certain as the current evidence and argument justifies.

Then you have a faith problem or lack of. How can you call yourself Christian and on the same token question how does one know that is God Himself? Then we all must be sick puppets and the NT is all a SCAM? You place way to much emphasis on "reason" to justify one's religious beliefs and convictions. Tell me at what point in time does a child with Down Syndrome "reason" that the God mentioned in the OT & NT is truly God?

I am Christian. And this is not relativism. Objective truth exists. But if it is not math, we cannot know the truth with absolute certainty this side of heaven. Unless you think human reasoning and decision making is generally infallible when it comes to matters of religion.

You believe that the Pope is infallible because of your own fallible reasoning. None of us can be completely sure. We just, each of us, try our best.

I do not think, I believe finite humans such the writers of the OT & NT and the men who gave us complex doctrines (Trinity,Incarnation,etc) were guided by the Holy Spirit in order to reveal His ABSOLUTE Truth as stated in John 16:13.

I did not say objective Truth...but ABSOLUTE Truth. God is TRUTH...not half-truths. The pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals not everything he says or does. The pope is just as humans as you and I.

They had their followers....there were over a hundred at Pentecost in the Upper Room, not just the apostles and Mary. Pentecost is the beginning of the Church.

You are sounding like those of non-denominational backgrounds who think the true church or followers disappeared or died away, and Constantine created the Catholic Church.....restorationist....I would consider the latter mythical.

Christ did not pick just one man but 12. Christ came to a gathering of disciples...the foundation of the dynamic of Church.

I think our understanding of Christ is very different from one another...ours is based on the apostolic witness of the apostles, their followers, and the work the Church did so that by 100 AD, we had episcopal form of administration, most books of Sacred Scripture discerned and chosen for public revelation, the form of worship in the liturgy...that is akin in spirit, tone, and parts to the Mass today after 2,000 years, our sacraments which are concrete and not relative symbolism, and the Apostles Creed....all set up to insure the true faith would be passed down through time.

Mary herself said all generations would call her blessed...she the greatest believer and model par excellence of Christianity...

Yes, you have to see the difference between relativism and individualism vs the gathering of believers under Christ and the institution of the Church who draws her life from Christ Himself and His sacraments through the Holy Spirit.

Your Ayn Rand example is excellent. I'm also encouraged no one (probably) would argue with my assessment.

Sure. If it's understood in the way that I presented it.

Quote:

In my mind, it puts Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants at the same level, w.r.t. final authority. Of course, at most one of the three groups can be right, but then the division really comes down to evidence and reasons, and not arguments from authority. Work needs to be done in order to provide these strong reasons for accepting various authorities.

I don't think anyone can trump the Catholic position on final authority. Having the Vicar of Christ here makes us "all in", you know? Either it's true, or it's not.

But having that authority on our side gives us every advantage, don't you think?

I can only be as certain as the current evidence and argument justifies.

A philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid, is of course "untrue". Since all the levels of research are not equal. Nor in the same areas of expertise.

Let quickly look at a few different areas.

Statistical probability to start with. Mathmatics professors Stoner and Dr. Newman calculated the probability of one individual fulfilling "just" 48 of Christs prophecies which exceed 150. The odds turned out to be 1 in 10 to the 157 power. A degree of statistical certainty which indicates Jesus is exactly who he claimed to be...The Living God.

No theologian or historian would dispute the fact that Jesus was the single most influencial figure ever to walk the earth. His action, words, and miracles changed the course of history. He inspired entire societies to incorporate compassion and mercy in their cultures. He refined the standards of morality thus "civil" man. He not only changed the course of nations; He bought an unexplainable measure of purpose, peace, and love into the lives of hundreds of millions of individuals. Never mind a psychological profile of Jesus, there is no fault, no issue, there is in a word; Perfection, which cannot be ignored.

Let me place this in perspective for you, exactly what it would require to hold the title of God?.

First lets state this, no Book ever written has produced more of an impact then the Bible. Thats why its called the Greatest Book Ever Written, you know a better one? Second no individual in History has been more written about or captured in the arts than Jesus, and for a woman that would be Mary.

To qualify for "God" one would have to reveal incredible truths that would otherwise go undiscovered. You would have to bring extraordinary, perhaps even miraculous benifit to the hearts and minds to those around you, and those who read your work.. for eternity. Certainly you would have to produce life-altering changes and not just to one or two people, but millions. You would have to have the "ability" to impart hope to those in despair, joy to those who's hearts of broken, you would have to able to bring unattainable peace in the midst of paralyzing fear. You would have to have the ability to transform a hateful heart to a loving one, a mind driven by greed to one overflowing with generosity, a life ruled by arrogance and ignorance into one driven to serve others.

And........... if you were truly God, you would have the power to give sight to the Blind, deliverance to the Captive, forgiveness to the Wrongdoer, and life to the Dead! Certainly this would earn one the title God.

Think about it, a man from a backward time with no mass communication, born of a peasant couple, only means of tranportation were His legs. He didn't even speak in public till the age of Thirty and then for 3-short years. How does a man as such from an obscure village in the middle east, change so many millions of lives over the course of History?

He proclaimed His message not only in a short time, but a small area, mostly small villages. He was falsely accused and sentenced to death by an official who believed Him to be innocent. He died the death of a condemned criminal, executed between two other condemned criminals, His Mother and a few close friends were the only ones present.

Then after all this He Rose from the Dead and appears to His followers, His followers were transformed into confident, fearless believers who witnessed to His message at the cost of countless lives. They didn't even have "paper" let alone a means to communicate via radio, televison, etc. While we can contest some of the canons we cannot contest the validity of many in particular Paul, Peter, Mark and Matthew. Ignatius of Antioch quoted Matthew 3X in his letters, and in Arabic, which means the original text remains hidden another "yet" to be discovered. Luke and Acts are the Evangelists works and refer to Mark to a degree. however, the intention wasn't to improve but add additional information in 75-AD The evangelist indicates the tradition did not originate in a "MYTH" about Gods, but in the life lived out by Jesus Christ. The absolute reality of Jesus facing the reality of what the world had in store for Him, the same struggle all must come to terms with being born, the meaning of existence and death.

The following generation of Bishops confirms the Apostles and there works can be read. And so forth and so on.

Jesus never "wrote" a word thats known or recorded. He "spoke" One Truth to twelve Apostles, then sent them out into the world to Deliver that Word. And they established the Apostolic Churchs. Jesus mentions CHURCH but "once" in the entire New Testament, and He builds that Church on St Peter, and tells Peter the Gates of hell will never prevail against it.

The Church guided by the Holy Spirit in its Holy Mysteries has withstood every Kingdom, Temporal Ruler, Empire and evil that set out to destroy it. From Nero, to Attila to the Goths to the muslims, to Napoleon to Hitler, Lenon and Stalin and all the rest. GONE, the Apostolic Church's remain.

The Church stands guided by the Lord, the Faith remains intact, the purpose and intended goal continues. These Souls cannot be distracted by the advancement of evil. Its been tried and tested time after time after time, its the story of the Bible front to back.

If you follow history back to the first century you will see that the same church exists which Christ himself established. And if evil had "prevailed" against Gods Church than I would be researching elsewhere.

__________________

"Eternal Father, I offer Thee the Most Precious Blood of Thy Divine Son, Jesus, in union with the Masses said throughout the world today, for all the Holy Souls in Purgatory, for sinners everywhere, for sinners in the universal church, those in my own home and within my family. Amen." St. Gertrude

That's right! We have very good reasons for accepting Jesus's message in the Bible. There are good historical reasons for believing that he is the Son of God.

Human reason is not infallible. Therefore, its conclusions, even conclusions about inerrancy or infallibility, may be wrong, and should always be suspect.

The existence of a perfect book or a perfect teaching authority does not help, because no one can ever perfectly know which authority is perfect!

Question remains is the Bible the Greatest Book ever written or not? And if you won't believe it what will you believe? This isn't Criminal Court we do not need evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt. Whats required is a preponderance of evidence. And I do believe we not only have it, but have had it for 2000 years here at the Catholic Church. The rest is called FAITH. "Which is to believe what you do not see, the reward is to see what you believe" Augustine.

Read what "one" of those passing Temporal Rulers had to say.

"I know men: and I tell you that Jesus Christ is not a man. Superficial minds see a resemblance between Christ and the founders of Empires, and the Gods of other religions. This resemblance Does Not Exist! Everything in Christ astonishs me. His Spirit awes me, His will confounds me. Between Him and everyone else in the world, there is no possible term of comparison. He is truly a being by Himself. His ideas and sentiments, the Truth which he announces, His manner of convincing, are not explained by either human organization or by the nature of things.... The nearer I approach, the more carefully I examiine, everything is above me, everything remains Grand, a Grandeur which overpowers. One can find ansolutely no-where, but in Him alone, the imitation of the example of His life. I searched in vain in History to find the similar to Jesus Christ. Neither History, Humanity, nor the ages, or nature, offer anything with which I am able to compare this or explain it. Here with Jesus everything is extrodinary" Napoleon

And you mean the historical arguements which you already admitted you didn't even bother to read on this thread?

"reason is not infallible. Therefore, its conclusions, even conclusions about inerrancy or infallibility"

Who is talking "reason" we are talking living History, among many other areas.

__________________

"Eternal Father, I offer Thee the Most Precious Blood of Thy Divine Son, Jesus, in union with the Masses said throughout the world today, for all the Holy Souls in Purgatory, for sinners everywhere, for sinners in the universal church, those in my own home and within my family. Amen." St. Gertrude

I see no advantage whatsoever. You must have come to accept this authority based on your own reasons, so your acceptance of infallible authority is in fact fallible.

What are the advantages?

Well, let's take it from your POV, which is that we are all starting from the same position: we are our own authority.

Each of us (Christians) then makes a decision to trust in some other authority--some say they "choose Christ", some choose the Bible, some still choose themselves and whatever seems palatable to them, and then some choose the Vicar of Christ (Catholics.).

The advantage Catholics have is that we are the closest to getting the message from Christ. Because, of course, those who say they follow Christ have no way of actually knowing what Christ said, and those who choose the Bible as their authority are contradicting their own paradigm (for the Bible doesn't actually say it is the authority), and those who choose what seems palatable to themselves are really only creating a god in their own image.

So it does seem advantageous to set your authority on the one that's the Vicar of Christ, when Christ isn't available to speak in Person about the common life, worship and teachings of the Church.